at my calculations Heikki is leading race battles as well 8-7 not Vitaly... qualies are 13-5 for Heikki and like have been said on this forum already if Caterham would be midfield team, Heikki's magnificent qualifying performances would matter much more and he would be clearly ahead of the Vitaly in races as he would start several places ahead of him.

You are wrong/ Check race results Vitaly was ahead 8 times(Malaysia, China, Bahrain, Valencia, Germany, Belgium, Korea, India)Heikki - 7 (Spain,Canada, Hungary, Italy, Singapore, Japan, Abu Dhabi )If they were racing in midfield teams, it would be another story. Vitaly told he is not putting much attention to race setup in current situation, as it is race that counts, and qualy usually means just one starting position in Caterham. He proved that he can be good in quals in midfield team by destroying Heidfeld 8-3 in 2011.

You are wrong/ Check race results Vitaly was ahead 8 times(Malaysia, China, Bahrain, Valencia, Germany, Belgium, Korea, India)Heikki - 7 (Spain,Canada, Hungary, Italy, Singapore, Japan, Abu Dhabi )If they were racing in midfield teams, it would be another story. Vitaly told he is not putting much attention to race setup in current situation, as it is race that counts, and qualy usually means just one starting position in Caterham. He proved that he can be good in quals in midfield team by destroying Heidfeld 8-3 in 2011.

To put that into perspective:in China Heikki had to make an extra pit stop to fix an issue with his tyre;in Bahrain Heikki had a puncture;in Valencia Heikki had a KERS issue and Vergne hit him, causing a nosecone change;in Germany Heikki had an issue with front wing that caused an extra pit stop for a nosecone change;in Belgium Heikki's car was released from the pit stop too early, which caused a contact with another car and a consequent nosecone change;in India Heikki had another KERS issue.

To put that into perspective:in China Heikki had to make an extra pit stop to fix an issue with his tyre;in Bahrain Heikki had a puncture;in Valencia Heikki had a KERS issue and Vergne hit him, causing a nosecone change;in Germany Heikki had an issue with front wing that caused an extra pit stop for a nosecone change;in Belgium Heikki's car was released from the pit stop too early, which caused a contact with another car and a consequent nosecone change;in India Heikki had another KERS issue.

To put that into perspective:in China Heikki had to make an extra pit stop to fix an issue with his tyre;in Bahrain Heikki had a puncture;in Valencia Heikki had a KERS issue and Vergne hit him, causing a nosecone change;in Germany Heikki had an issue with front wing that caused an extra pit stop for a nosecone change;in Belgium Heikki's car was released from the pit stop too early, which caused a contact with another car and a consequent nosecone change;in India Heikki had another KERS issue.

In Belgium Kovalainen spun in 7 lap, so it was his own fault and he would be behind 100% even without pit stop troubles.In Germany Vitaly was ahead in first stint, but Heikki was called to pit first and jumped ahead, without giving Vitaly a position later ( in similar situation in Korea Vitaly let Heikki past because it is team politics )In China Vitaly was faster and was catching Heikki even before his pit stop troubles.

And looking at the other side of garage -in Monza Vitaly was faster,and was set to overtake Kova in last lap, but his new engineer make mistake by telling him there will still be one lap to go, while it was last lap, the gap between them was just 0,1 sec. In Spain Vitaly was on another strategy with one more stint on prome tyre, so conditions were not equalIn Australia when they both retired Vitaly also was ahead.And in Great Britain Vitaly could not even start after winning qual.

In Belgium Kovalainen spun in 7 lap, so it was his own fault and he would be behind 100% even without pit stop troubles.In Germany Vitaly was ahead in first stint, but Heikki was called to pit first and jumped ahead, without giving Vitaly a position later ( in similar situation in Korea Vitaly let Heikki past because it is team politics )In China Vitaly was faster and was catching Heikki even before his pit stop troubles.

And looking at the other side of garage -in Monza Vitaly was faster,and was set to overtake Kova in last lap, but his new engineer make mistake by telling him there will still be one lap to go, while it was last lap, the gap between them was just 0,1 sec. In Spain Vitaly was on another strategy with one more stint on prome tyre, so conditions were not equalIn Australia when they both retired Vitaly also was ahead.And in Great Britain Vitaly could not even start after winning qual.

Yes, so all in all no difference whatsoever in their race performances.

Yes, so all in all no difference whatsoever in their race performances.

That's pretty much my conlusion, too.

Qualis are currently 13-5 in Heikki's favour. In race starts Kova has gained 34 places off the start line this season, and Vitaly 8 places.

Heikki's best quali results in 2012 are 2x16th and 3x18th, while Vitaly's best results are 8x19th. Heikki's best race results are 2x13th, 2x14th and 2x15th, and Vitaly's 1x13th, 1x14th, and 1x15th.

It's difficult to judge which driver has been better in races, because the numerous technical issues and some non-driver-dependent race incidents have affected the race results. Heikki has had better pace in some races and Vitaly in others, but in most races they've been quite evenly paced.

Neither driver has done anything spectacular in races, although Kova put up a good fight in Monaco fending off Button's attacks, and might have finished 12th there, but then it started to drizzle and Heikki's break temperatures dropped, allowing Perez to attack and overtake him (and to break Heikki's front wing in the process).

He's probably better than most of the candidates that seem to be getting his job. I doubt the ones ending into Sauber or Force India are better than him either.

There's a few problems with Heikkis's career, thou. First of all he doesn't have money or sponsors so the pay driver scene is out of question. And the top teams rather have someone with potential - read "hope, however weak hope" - to be a very top driver instead of a very good driver that is exposed to be just below the absolute best ones.

By beating Fisi who was unbeatable before that Heikki showed a strong promise of being a future star. His time with McLaren destroyed the hope althou his effeorts weren't hopeless there. Qualifying tactics back then combined with the fact he was competing with a great driver with a team in his hands finished his career. Caterham career was beating a dead horse basically.

What comes to some saying Petrov is beating him ... Ridiculous. Look at quali stats. Their race speed is so poor you can't make any conclusions based on that.

so for back-marker cars only qualifying matters...what a shitty logic....

even if you drive a slow car,there is always a chance of measuring how fast you can drive it compare to your team-mate throughout the race...and his race pace has been similar to petrov for most of the season so far....even in his Macca days he showed good quali-pace and then mediocre race pace most of the time....

I think it isn't about poor race speed, but the fact that these bottom teams only have very little clean weekend (and race day) that comparing race speed is a lot more difficult.
Qualifying is probably the most time where they are trouble free, meaning both drivers aren't hindered with technical problems.

I think it isn't about poor race speed, but the fact that these bottom teams only have very little clean weekend (and race day) that comparing race speed is a lot more difficult.Qualifying is probably the most time where they are trouble free, meaning both drivers aren't hindered with technical problems.

Actually this is what I essentially ment, not just poor speed, poor team, trouble filled races for both. Btw, according to Autosport results Kovalainen is 20th and Petrov 21st in championship standings. (How's that calculated?)

Actually this is what I essentially ment, not just poor speed, poor team, trouble filled races for both. Btw, according to Autosport results Kovalainen is 20th and Petrov 21st in championship standings. (How's that calculated?)

I'm guessing the first 18 drivers have points and TG's 12th outranks HK's best result...

Actually this is what I essentially ment, not just poor speed, poor team, trouble filled races for both. Btw, according to Autosport results Kovalainen is 20th and Petrov 21st in championship standings. (How's that calculated?)

I said this earlier but i want to reiterate it, blue flags can also affect them and distort their race pace/position so its far harder to judge them by just saying "oh but driver X finished ahead of driver Y some many times." Heikki has consistently had the upper hand in qualy (by .250s on average) and if they were in the midfield that could account for 3/4/5 places, not the one it does right now and can then have a big impact on where they are able to finish in the race.

Also Petrov has done a good job this season, much better than i thought he would so fair play to him, in an ideal world i'd like Caterham to stick with them both but i don't think thats going to happen, sadly.

its rare for those new teams to get attention on race day, but they get a decent amount in qualy. heck the media happily followed caterhams quest to get into q2 for ages, so wouldnt surprise me if heikki was on more of a qualy setup, either by choice or by teams choice

Kovalainen beat Trulli and Fisichella, both of whom did perfectly well against Alonso, who is one of the top drivers in F1. All 4 have won races in F1, which is something the majority of drivers in F1 have never and will never do. His problem is obviously that he comes from a low-population country/small market, so he cannot be a pay-driver.

In which parallel universe did Fisico well against Alonso?

And the "triangle-comparisons" will always fail eventually. e.g. If i look at KOV vs. HAM vs. ALO there would be a completely different result.

Obviously you don't know the meaning of, fan. You know, that thing you use when you are hot ?

This is why it is best to be fan of the sport rather of one driver team, as it makes the person very narrow minded and arrogant towards other competitors. Also due to bias you tend to not see your driver/team for what they really are. Anyway....

After 28 years of studying F1 like as if I'm doing it at university it is very easy to say who gives a toss about F1 if Kobayashi & Kovalainen can't get a drive but rent-a-drive Petrov can. Bye bye sport, those obsessive with the coin wins.

Kovalainen said a year ago he had a drive lined up at Toyota in 2010.. then they went under

That surprises me as I thought Trulli - Kobayashi or Glock - Kobayashi would be a more logical line-up for Toyota in 2010, especially after Kobayashi filling in so well for Glock in 2009, I would have expected him to take 1 seat and the other seat to go to one of the drivers that were already there. I doubt they would have replaced both drivers at the same time.

After 28 years of studying F1 like as if I'm doing it at university it is very easy to say who gives a toss about F1 if Kobayashi & Kovalainen can't get a drive but rent-a-drive Petrov can. Bye bye sport, those obsessive with the coin wins.

Rent-a-drive Petrov is matching Kovalainen despite being in the team for the 1st year? He deserved seat in F1 on merit not less then Kovalainen. Why again so much hate for Petrov? Does he need to destroy Kovalainen 20-0 on quals and 20-0 on races to show he is not worse than Kovalainen?

Rent-a-drive Petrov is matching Kovalainen despite being in the team for the 1st year? He deserved seat in F1 on merit not less then Kovalainen. Why again so much hate for Petrov? Does he need to destroy Kovalainen 20-0 on quals and 20-0 on races to show he is not worse than Kovalainen?

He would actually have to finish ahead him in the championship, I reckon.

That surprises me as I thought Trulli - Kobayashi or Glock - Kobayashi would be a more logical line-up for Toyota in 2010, especially after Kobayashi filling in so well for Glock in 2009, I would have expected him to take 1 seat and the other seat to go to one of the drivers that were already there. I doubt they would have replaced both drivers at the same time.

Kobayashi- Kovalainen would have been Toyota line up for 2010 most likely, as Heikki said he had a contract with them. But we know Toyota were also after Kimi but Kimi wasnt interested so it was byebye to Toyota.

Rent-a-drive Petrov is matching Kovalainen despite being in the team for the 1st year? He deserved seat in F1 on merit not less then Kovalainen. Why again so much hate for Petrov? Does he need to destroy Kovalainen 20-0 on quals and 20-0 on races to show he is not worse than Kovalainen?

Petrov is a good driver and does deserve to be in F1 but so does many others...and Heikki is better driver than Petrov, they are on similar level on races but Heikki is clearly ahead of qualifying and because of these facts he is a better driver and it would be seen clearly if both would be driving Sauber or Williams for example...Heikki would qualify several places ahead of Petrov and as their racepace is quite same, Petrov wouldn't get near of Heikki.

Rent-a-drive Petrov is matching Kovalainen despite being in the team for the 1st year? He deserved seat in F1 on merit not less then Kovalainen. Why again so much hate for Petrov? Does he need to destroy Kovalainen 20-0 on quals and 20-0 on races to show he is not worse than Kovalainen?

Quite frankly after quick skimming of this thread and couple other threads I have failed to see as much hate for Petrov as you for some reason show for Kovalainen.

Rent-a-drive Petrov is matching Kovalainen despite being in the team for the 1st year? He deserved seat in F1 on merit not less then Kovalainen. Why again so much hate for Petrov? Does he need to destroy Kovalainen 20-0 on quals and 20-0 on races to show he is not worse than Kovalainen?

Vitaly is a good driver, especially if you think about his late start of racing career and zero carting expirience.

But I tend to think that the only reason why difference between Kova and Petrov is so small is the car - its limit is just so... poor that drivers talent barely plays role.

I suppose the connection is something like this:- there has been doubts about Finns being not able to get funds to be pay drivers and there's been overall disgust over pay driver phenomenom itself in this HK thread. - MH is a Finn who started as a paydriver, was considered as a journeyman and stil was pretty succesful eventually); MS started as a pay driver and was pretty succesful quite early on. - therefore MH and MSC serve as examples that weaken the argument of difficulties in getting funds as a Finn and sucking just because of history as a paydriver or journeyman.

I suppose the connection is something like this:- there has been doubts about Finns being not able to get funds to be pay drivers and there's been overall disgust over pay driver phenomenom itself in this HK thread. - MH is a Finn who started as a paydriver, was considered as a journeyman and stil was pretty succesful eventually); MS started as a pay driver and was pretty succesful quite early on. - therefore MH and MSC serve as examples that weaken the argument of difficulties in getting funds as a Finn and sucking just because of history as a paydriver or journeyman.

I didn´t know that about MSC, Keke Rosberg actually did bought MH a seat at Lotus for 1991 season, but today we are talking about tens of millions. That is a huge difference compared to those days when the seat costed maybe a 100 k. I do believe that a drivers coming from a small democratic countries will have less chances in the future. Funny that those millions are coming from a relatively poor countries...Maybe we see a North-Korean driver in the grid in the future, who cares about the human rights if there is dollars available, right

I´m not saying that the paydriver can´t be great champs, but this trend is definately wrong...

The driver quality is of secondary importance for Caterham. The 10th place is like winning a lottery, by being the best backmarker in the race which sees the most cars from the established team retire. All they need are drivers who can stay ahead of the other 2 small teams. If those bring money, so that missing 10th place is already compensated for at the start of the season, it is a huge advantage.

After 28 years of studying F1 like as if I'm doing it at university it is very easy to say who gives a toss about F1 if Kobayashi & Kovalainen can't get a drive but rent-a-drive Petrov can. Bye bye sport, those obsessive with the coin wins.

That surprises me as I thought Trulli - Kobayashi or Glock - Kobayashi would be a more logical line-up for Toyota in 2010, especially after Kobayashi filling in so well for Glock in 2009, I would have expected him to take 1 seat and the other seat to go to one of the drivers that were already there. I doubt they would have replaced both drivers at the same time.

Trulli-Kobayashi. Japanese leadership had requested Trulli wait until November and did not enter into other contracts. Glock fell out with the leadership, he was not at the festival Toyota in Fuji, even

Kobayashi- Kovalainen would have been Toyota line up for 2010 most likely, as Heikki said he had a contract with them. But we know Toyota were also after Kimi but Kimi wasnt interested so it was byebye to Toyota.

John Howett lied, they did not offer for Kimi, the Toyota has not the budget, they know what to leave F1, with high probability.Change Trulli-Kovalainen was pointless

And when exactly was Häkkinen considered a journeyman? He beat Senna in his first qualifying for Mclaren. His Mclaren team mates were maybe mostly journeymen, but he beat them comfortably (Coulthard gave him trouble on a couple of years, I guess, but generally). He did the job when Mclaren finally produced a championship capable car again.